FlashHarry:how the fark is this thread nearly 400 comments long? is there actually some debate as to whether or not this racist piece of filth has the right to deny service to people based on their skin color or sexual orientation?

What's the criteria? Is it geography? Is it historical? What sets your dividing lines?

If you want to go with the strictly geographical, then you'll have to use the geopraphical center of the contiguous US. That puts almost all of Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California in the southern half of the country, as well as all of Arizona and New Mexico.If you want historical (meaning the Confederacy), then your own map is incorrect as it includes Missouri and Kentucky (neither of which seceded), and does include West Virginia (which only came into being by their refusal to go along with secession).

Incidentally, the center of the contiguous states in only six minutes of latitude north of the Mason-Dixon line.

I live in GA and don't feel OK is Southern at all. Let's just call that whole strip "the plains". Give East Texas to the South and West Texas to the West. South Florida goes to the Caribbean.

Bloody William:FlashHarry: how the fark is this thread nearly 400 comments long? is there actually some debate as to whether or not this racist piece of filth has the right to deny service to people based on their skin color or sexual orientation?

FlashHarry:how the fark is this thread nearly 400 comments long? is there actually some debate as to whether or not this racist piece of filth has the right to deny service to people based on their skin color or sexual orientation?

Lol, I came in here wondering the same thing. I think they're now discussing whether or not Oklahoma is part of "The South".

Clever Neologism:Dancin_In_Anson: Bloody William: In fact, I'm repeating what I said... to you, that you ignored and continue to ignore for the sake of your bullshiat argument that preventing discrimination based on certain groups is the same as preventing any discretion on accepting customers on the part of a business.

So great. Now blacks can eat at the lunch counter at Woolworths. Why in Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan's name would they even want to at that point? Why would YOU? You have changed nothing about the people involved, you have not changed any minds or hearts. But now everyone can give Woolworth their money and Woolworth will begrudgingly take it. I think you and I have the same goal in mind just a different view of how to accomplish it.

Your right, you do have a different view and the same goals.

Here's the difference between the two: you argue it shouldn't be necessary from ideals, and he demonstrates it is factually necessary from history. Why should anyone trust your idealism over empirical fact?

Bontesla:Dancin_In_Anson: Bloody William: In fact, I'm repeating what I said... to you, that you ignored and continue to ignore for the sake of your bullshiat argument that preventing discrimination based on certain groups is the same as preventing any discretion on accepting customers on the part of a business.

So great. Now blacks can eat at the lunch counter at Woolworths. Why in Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan's name would they even want to at that point? Why would YOU? You have changed nothing about the people involved, you have not changed any minds or hearts. But now everyone can give Woolworth their money and Woolworth will begrudgingly take it. I think you and I have the same goal in mind just a different view of how to accomplish it.

Historically, discrimination like this limited access in the political process.

It also limited your ability to network which leads to things like employment.

There's also the argument that we shouldn't tolerate this absurdity because it's wrong.

Sometimes there's an advantage to allowing the shiatbags like this to publicly fly their hate. It emboldens others who might otherwise hide their bullshiat.

I do think, though, it's better to just deal with them when they pop up. Society is under no obligation to allow business like this to exist, let alone prosper. It reflects poorly on everyone and contributes to decay.

InterruptingQuirk:What about the disproportionately large Native American population compared to other deep South states, second only to Alaska in percentage of Native American residents?

An unique feature of the state, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't really change the dominant cultural trend (pentacostal redneck-and-proud in sprawling burbs). Voting, religion, and cultural touchstones... it's part of the ever-growing South. If you want to argue that Oklahoma is distinct from any other state because of its Native population (or that OK, SD, and AK are a 'region' because they share that), fine.

I'm pretty sure the guy in the article would enjoy living in the past as well.

You do realize that the Confederacy didn't annex any states after the Civil War?

You cling to your definition of "the South", Kentucky, Times change and Oklahoma is now a southern state.

Call it that all you want, it's still a Western state.

[img.fark.net image 350x230]

No, it's not.

What's the criteria? Is it geography? Is it historical? What sets your dividing lines?

If you want to go with the strictly geographical, then you'll have to use the geopraphical center of the contiguous US. That puts almost all of Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California in the southern half of the country, as well as all of Arizona and New Mexico.If you want historical (meaning the Confederacy), then your own map is incorrect as it includes Missouri and Kentucky (neither of which seceded), and does include West Virginia (which only came into being by their refusal to go along with secession).

Incidentally, the center of the contiguous states in only six minutes of latitude north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Objection overruled! You opened the Wikipedia door yourself, counselor.

Bane of Boone showed you a map of what was generally considered the south. (From Wikipedia) You tried (unsuccessfully) to quote that same article for support of your theory. (If you RTFCaption of the picture you posted, Oklahoma is considered southern because it was in the confederacy. It's not shaded in that picture because it was a territory as opposed to a state.) You argued it was a western state. According to Wikipedia, it's not.

Kiwimann:FlashHarry: how the fark is this thread nearly 400 comments long? is there actually some debate as to whether or not this racist piece of filth has the right to deny service to people based on their skin color or sexual orientation?

Lol, I came in here wondering the same thing. I think they're now discussing whether or not Oklahoma is part of "The South".

I'm arguing that fark progressives do seem to think that everyone else should progress to their enlightened way of thinking ("racists are filth!" Everyone knows that!"), and how that really is a form of cultural imperialism.

Because I'm very, very bored, and fark progressives are easily offended.

sendtodave:I'm arguing that fark progressives do seem to think that everyone else should progress to their enlightened way of thinking ("racists are filth!" Everyone knows that!"), and how that really is a form of cultural imperialism.

sendtodave:Kiwimann: FlashHarry: how the fark is this thread nearly 400 comments long? is there actually some debate as to whether or not this racist piece of filth has the right to deny service to people based on their skin color or sexual orientation?

Lol, I came in here wondering the same thing. I think they're now discussing whether or not Oklahoma is part of "The South".

I'm arguing that fark progressives do seem to think that everyone else should progress to their enlightened way of thinking ("racists are filth!" Everyone knows that!"), and how that really is a form of cultural imperialism.

Because I'm very, very bored, and fark progressives are easily offended.

jso2897:sendtodave: Kiwimann: FlashHarry: how the fark is this thread nearly 400 comments long? is there actually some debate as to whether or not this racist piece of filth has the right to deny service to people based on their skin color or sexual orientation?

Lol, I came in here wondering the same thing. I think they're now discussing whether or not Oklahoma is part of "The South".

I'm arguing that fark progressives do seem to think that everyone else should progress to their enlightened way of thinking ("racists are filth!" Everyone knows that!"), and how that really is a form of cultural imperialism.

Because I'm very, very bored, and fark progressives are easily offended.

James10952001:PanicMan: Mattyb710: I do not believe there should be laws that control what an individual does with their privately owned property, except in cases of public health and safety.

Discrimination damages the health and safety of a community. The effects may not be immediate, but they can be severe, even lethal.

So does being an asshole, but how do you outlaw that?

You can't legislate morality.

No, but you can legislate how businesses work and make sure they cannot deny customers for the color of their skin or country of origin. And we did that in 1964, and through various states in the last 60 years we've been doing that with sexual orientation and other characteristics.

James10952001:James!: Gosh, Oklahoma must be a nice place to never visit ever.

A good friend of mine is from there. He's said Oklahoma is a great place to be *from*. I've also heard that it looks the nicest in your rearview mirror.

I'm sure there are some nice parts, but it's never been real high on my list of places to go.

I've driven across it a few times. If there are nice parts, I have yet to encounter them.

/ have a particular hatred for the Oklahoma City toll booths -- exact change only, every few miles. You need to carry rolls of coins to drive through legally -- having sufficient cash is not enough. Thankfully nothing seems to happen if you simply drive through the toll booth (except for a bell ringing, but there didn't appear to be any camera or other meaningful enforcement). If I were going to get a ticket, it would have come months ago.

Lawnchair:InterruptingQuirk: What about the disproportionately large Native American population compared to other deep South states, second only to Alaska in percentage of Native American residents?

An unique feature of the state, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't really change the dominant cultural trend (pentacostal redneck-and-proud in sprawling burbs). Voting, religion, and cultural touchstones... it's part of the ever-growing South. If you want to argue that Oklahoma is distinct from any other state because of its Native population (or that OK, SD, and AK are a 'region' because they share that), fine.

Actually, the Pentecostals account for the lowest number of Christian adherents in Oklahoma: The state's largest church memberships are in the Southern Baptist Convention with 886,394 members, the United Methodist Church, with 282,347 members, the Roman Catholic Church, with 17,430, and the Assemblies of God, with 85,926.

Rapmaster2000:sendtodave:I'm arguing that fark progressives do seem to think that everyone else should progress to their enlightened way of thinking ("racists are filth!" Everyone knows that!"), and how that really is a form of cultural imperialism.

sendtodave:jso2897: sendtodave: Kiwimann: FlashHarry: how the fark is this thread nearly 400 comments long? is there actually some debate as to whether or not this racist piece of filth has the right to deny service to people based on their skin color or sexual orientation?

Lol, I came in here wondering the same thing. I think they're now discussing whether or not Oklahoma is part of "The South".

I'm arguing that fark progressives do seem to think that everyone else should progress to their enlightened way of thinking ("racists are filth!" Everyone knows that!"), and how that really is a form of cultural imperialism.

Because I'm very, very bored, and fark progressives are easily offended.

Soeday, you need to come out of your head and meet some real people.

Screw that, I have to deal with real people every day!

Well, I realize that they are a lot harder to win arguments with than the imaginary folks in your head. Real people are actually more fun to argue with than imaginary constructs of what you erroneously suppose a "liberal" to be, though - so you're really just cheating yourself.

sendtodave:Rapmaster2000: sendtodave:I'm arguing that fark progressives do seem to think that everyone else should progress to their enlightened way of thinking ("racists are filth!" Everyone knows that!"), and how that really is a form of cultural imperialism.

Sweet. I'm culturally imperial. Keep the compliments coming, bro.

See? It's so easy.

I'm also physically imperial. Been really bulking up on the creatine. I'm about to blow this thread and blast my quads.

James10952001:Why can't you? Is that not covered by the 1st amendment? That's not to say the community shouldn't call him out on it, but it shouldn't be against the law.

Since it's how a business owner runs a public accommodation, no, it is not covered by the 1st amendments.

soupafi misspoke. You can openly say "no crippled, n*ggers, or f*ggots," but you can't say "no crippled, n*ggers, or f*ggots will be served in this publicly open dining establishment or other place of business."

Magorn:Apparently he's not up on recent developments in the law, like say the public accomodation clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And I can just see him trying to claim he's not REALLy a racist in court and the opposing attorney producing "The restaurant's official t-shirt" "{which} makes it clear that a "f*ggot" isn't welcome in James's establishment. It features that word, the N-word, and threatens violence against Muslims, Democrats, and members of many minority groups. "

I almost want to see that shirt now, and a picture of someone who thinks wearing it would be a good idea

Please explain how womans only gysm avoid the public accomidation clause of the Civil Rights act. If a gym can restrict its patrons based on gender then a business can restrict its patrons based on anything.

jso2897:sendtodave: jso2897: sendtodave: Kiwimann: FlashHarry: how the fark is this thread nearly 400 comments long? is there actually some debate as to whether or not this racist piece of filth has the right to deny service to people based on their skin color or sexual orientation?

Lol, I came in here wondering the same thing. I think they're now discussing whether or not Oklahoma is part of "The South".

I'm arguing that fark progressives do seem to think that everyone else should progress to their enlightened way of thinking ("racists are filth!" Everyone knows that!"), and how that really is a form of cultural imperialism.

Because I'm very, very bored, and fark progressives are easily offended.

Soeday, you need to come out of your head and meet some real people.

Screw that, I have to deal with real people every day!

Well, I realize that they are a lot harder to win arguments with than the imaginary folks in your head. Real people are actually more fun to argue with than imaginary constructs of what you erroneously suppose a "liberal" to be, though - so you're really just cheating yourself.

sendtodave:jso2897: sendtodave: jso2897: sendtodave: Kiwimann: FlashHarry: how the fark is this thread nearly 400 comments long? is there actually some debate as to whether or not this racist piece of filth has the right to deny service to people based on their skin color or sexual orientation?

Lol, I came in here wondering the same thing. I think they're now discussing whether or not Oklahoma is part of "The South".

I'm arguing that fark progressives do seem to think that everyone else should progress to their enlightened way of thinking ("racists are filth!" Everyone knows that!"), and how that really is a form of cultural imperialism.

Because I'm very, very bored, and fark progressives are easily offended.

Soeday, you need to come out of your head and meet some real people.

Screw that, I have to deal with real people every day!

Well, I realize that they are a lot harder to win arguments with than the imaginary folks in your head. Real people are actually more fun to argue with than imaginary constructs of what you erroneously suppose a "liberal" to be, though - so you're really just cheating yourself.